Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

CAPITAL CASE

No. S171393

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DON¡¯TE LAMONT MCDANIEL,

PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

THE HONORABLE GAVIN NEWSOM IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT MCDANIEL

Appeal from Judgment of

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. TA074274

The Honorable Robert J. Perry, Presiding

* ELISABETH SEMEL

DIRECTOR,

DEATH PENALTY CLINIC

(SBN 67484)

U.C. Berkeley School of Law

Berkeley, CA 94720-7200

esemel@law.berkeley.edu

Telephone: 510-642-0458

Facsimile: 510-643-4625

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY

DEAN

(ADMITTED IN ILLINOIS AND

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

U.C. Berkeley School of Law

Berkeley, CA 94720-7200

echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu

Telephone: 510-642-6483

Facsimile: 510-642-9893

Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae

THE HON. GAVIN NEWSOM

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

Defendant and Appellant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE .................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................... 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 21

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................... 23

I. THE CALIFORNIA JURY RIGHT SHOULD BE

UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORICAL

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RACISM AND CAPITAL

PUNISHMENT...................................................................................... 23

B. Capital Punishment in the United States Is Rooted in the

Legacy of Slavery, Racial Terror, and Subjugation. ........................31

C. The Historical and Present-Day Experiences of African

Americans with the Criminal Justice System Are Relevant to

Understanding Their Disproportionate Removal from Capital

Juries. ..................................................................................................37

1. The history and present-day administration of the criminal

justice system is racially discriminatory. .....................................37

2. As a result of historical and present-day discrimination,

Black Americans and White Americans tend to have

significantly different views of the criminal justice and capital

punishment systems. ......................................................................42

D. The Selection of California Jury Venires Perpetuates the

Underrepresentation of African Americans. ....................................44

E. Death Qualification Dilutes African Americans¡¯ Viewpoints

and Produces Juries that Are Conviction- and Death-Prone and

Likely to Be Influenced by Racial Bias. ............................................49

F. The Batson/Wheeler Regime Exacerbates the Racially

Discriminatory Effects of Death Qualification. ...............................53

II.

REQUIRING UNANIMITY AND PROOF BEYOND A

REASONABLE DOUBT WILL REDUCE RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS IN CAPITAL

SENTENCING. ..................................................................................... 57

2

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

A. California Continues to Impose the Death Penalty Despite

Compelling Evidence of Racial Discrimination in its

Administration. ...................................................................................23

A. Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts Entrench White Control of the

Jury Box. .............................................................................................57

1. Louisiana¡¯s and Oregon¡¯s non-unanimous jury rules were

designed to nullify black jury service mandated by the

Reconstruction Amendments. ........................................................57

2. Attacks on California¡¯s unanimity requirement were racially

motivated attempts to suppress minority voices in jury

deliberations. ...................................................................................60

B. Unanimity Requirement Would Reduce Racial Discrimination

in Death Sentencing. ..........................................................................66

1. Diverse juries diminish the influence of racial bias in capital

sentencing. .......................................................................................67

2. Unanimity improves the quality and reliability of the

deliberative process. .......................................................................69

1. As a general proposition, rules increasing clarity help

prevent racially biased behaviors. .................................................72

2. A reasonable doubt standard provides clarity, thereby

reducing jurors¡¯ reliance on racial stereotypes. ...........................74

CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 76

ATTACHMENT A ............................................................................ 77

ATTACHMENT B .......................................................................... 163

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL..................................................... 171

DECLARATION OF SERVICE .................................................... 172

3

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

C. A Reasonable Doubt Requirement for the Life-or-Death

Verdict Would Also Reduce Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing. ....72

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) .................................... 53-56

Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) ................................... 53

Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1987) ....................................... 50

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) ....................................... 32

Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) ................................... 44-45

Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) .......................... passim

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879) ............................ 44

State Cases

Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 (1980) ................................ 50

In re Perkins, 2 Cal. 424 (1852) ...................................................... 34

People v. Armstrong, 6 Cal. 5th 735 (2019) ................................... 54

People v. Bryant, 40 Cal. App. 5th 525 (2019) ............................... 56

People v. Harris, 57 Cal. 4th 804 (2013) ........................................ 42

People v. Hensley, 59 Cal. 4th 788 (2014) ...................................... 54

People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal. 4th 469 (2002) ................................... 51

People v. Hines, 12 Cal. 2d 535 (1939) ...................................... 45-46

People v. Johnson, 8 Cal. 5th 475 (2019) ................................. 42, 56

People v. Jurado, 38 Cal. 4th 72 (2006) ......................................... 54

People v. Lenix, 44 Cal. 4th 602 (2008) .......................................... 54

4

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) ...................................... 45

People v. Lomax, 49 Cal. 4th 530 (2010) ........................................ 54

People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal. 4th 40 (2013) .................................. 54

People v. Melendez, 2 Cal. 5th 1 (2016) .......................................... 54

People v. Miles, 9 Cal. 5th 513 (2020) ............................................ 56

People v. Ross, 134 Cal. 256 (1901)................................................. 37

People v. Suarez, 10 Cal. 5th 116 (2020) ........................................ 49

People v. Triplett, 48 Cal. App. 5th 655 (2020)........................ 37, 43

People v. Welch, 49 Cal. 174 (1874) ................................................ 36

People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 256 (1978) ................................... 53-54

State v. Gregory, 427 P.3d 621, 627 (Wash. 2018) ........................ 24

Constitutional Provisions

Cal. Const., art. I, ¡ì¡ì

3 ............................................................ 21

16 ................................................ 21, 60, 76

State Statutes and Bills

A.B. 3070, 2019-2020 Leg., Reg. Sess.,

?

bill_id=201920200AB3070 ............................................... 55-56

A.C.A. No. 18, 1995-1996 Leg., Reg. Sess. .......................... 61-62, 64

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, ¡ì 197(a)-(b) ................................................... 46

Cal. Elec. Code,

¡ì

2101 ................................................... 47

5

Document received by the CA Supreme Court.

People v. Williams, 56 Cal. 4th 630 (2013) .................................... 54

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download